I feel so strongly that Mitt Romney is the right choice for president that I wanted to make one last post, my closing argument as it were, in hopes of convincing that one last undecided voter out there somewhere to vote for Mitt. I wanted to explain why I, and the other authors here at Mitt Romney Central, have devoted such time, effort, emotion, and yes, money, to the cause of electing Mitt. My list of specific reasons why I like Mitt, and my counterarguments to President Obama’s case, are below. But I can sum up why I feel so strongly with this: Barack Obama’s vision for America is inconsistent with that of our founding fathers and our Constitution.

A Limited Government Preserves Freedom

Our government was founded on the principles of self-determination and freedom. Americans were not content to be told by the British government how much they should pay in taxes or what freedoms they were entitled to. So they fought a war to gain their independence. When the founding fathers then set up their own government, at the forefront of their minds was the concern for how to preserve their hard-won freedoms. So they came up with three fundamental ideas about the new federal government: (i) it should be small, split into different branches with checks and balances over each other’s power, (ii) it should share power with, and in fact have less power over citizens’ day-to-day lives than, the states, where the citizens were better represented, and (iii) our most basic freedoms should be enshrined in a Bill of Rights to make absolutely sure the federal government did not violate them. This combination of ideas, they thought, would assure, over time, that the God-given rights they had won back from their government at great cost would be preserved against tyranny.

Obama’s Vision of a Larger Government is Antithetical to Freedom.

In 2008 when Senator Obama talked of “transforming” America and saying “we can do better,” it was clear to me he was talking about fundamentally changing these key principles. He stood for a larger federal government; one that would try and take responsibility for the poor and do more for its citizens. While that may sound nice, having a government undertake that responsibility also means it must become larger, tax more (a government that undertakes to define what’s fair for all its citizens will also try and make everyone pay their “fair share”) and become more involved in our lives, much more involved than the founding fathers intended. A larger government necessarily becomes more difficult to manage, begins to take on a life of its own, and becomes very difficult to control. A larger federal government also means a shift in power from the states, where citizens can more easily control their own destiny. And once people begin to rely on government largesse, cutting the size of that government and its programs, even if the government cannot afford them (witness our overwhelming deficits and the troubles in Europe as it tries to cut back), becomes very, very difficult. People become less willing to give up that security, even if it means a loss of liberty. And they can become accustomed to the idea that the government represents someone else, not them, and that they are owed something by that government (witness appeals from the left that sound like class warfare). As a result, I believe the policies of President Obama reflect a threat to our liberty. Perhaps not immediate. Perhaps only a little. But what he wants to do, at its core, is inconsistent with the intended size and role of our government, which means we will inevitably lose a little, or a lot, of liberty. How much really depends on how much further down Obama’s road we go. And in my view, we’ve already lost too much.

Example: Obamacare.

As an illustration of what I mean, I’ll use Obamacare. It sounds nice to make sure everyone has health insurance. And there are lots of stories of people who can’t afford insurance, and how having it would benefit them greatly. I get that, and I feel for their situation. This is what Obama meant by “we can do better.” He’d like to use government resources to fix these problems. But, just like when you get your first credit card, you need to look beyond the nice things you can buy and decide whether you can really afford it, because that bill will come due at some time. As for the cost in dollars and cents, it’s clear we can’t afford Obamacare. We just can’t. It adds trillions of unfunded government outlays over the next two decades. And once these benefits are offered to citizens it’s very difficult to take them away. In addition, Obamacare has already begun to infringe on our freedoms. At its core it’s the federal government (not the state, which is the principal difference between Obamacare and Romneycare), forcing us to buy a product. Then, because it forces us to buy this product, it must go further and legislate the minimum requirements of this product (or everyone would buy the cheapest version available). That legislation now includes elements some religions find offensive. How’d we get here? By involving the federal government in something it really was never intended by the founding fathers to be involved in: providing health insurance. Further, because the IRS will be in charge of enforcing compliance with the mandate, it will need to know our personal health information. The founders’ vision of limited federal power, with express limits on what the federal government can and can’t do, has been violated by Obamacare. And having the federal government in this position simply poses a threat to our freedom. The founders knew power corrupts, and while we think we can trust the government now, we don’t always know we will be able to. When will it be your religious belief that’s infringed? Or your freedom of speech? This is why the Republicans resist President Obama so much. This is why Obamacare did not get one single Republican vote. This is why Obama’s own budget was rejected by not only Republicans but his own party. And finally this is why Mitch McConnell said it was his goal to make sure Obama only had one term: to try and make sure the damage President Obama does is not long-lasting. Obamacare is a threat to our freedom, and it’s just one example.

This Ain’t Just Rhetoric.

Let me say that this is not just rhetoric. I’m not just making an argument because I want you to vote for Mitt for some other hidden reason. This is why I’m voting for Mitt, and why I honestly believe everyone should. This is what worries me about the prospect of Obama serving another term. He has already made some strides toward “transforming” America into something I believe it was never intended to be. Obamacare was one very large step in that direction. As Vice President Biden said, it was a “[blanking] big deal.” I know the further we go down this road the more difficult it is to go back. I also know the GOP will fight Obama to preserve that liberty, which is likely to result in more gridlock at a time when our government needs to work together. Unfortunately, though, cooperating with the president can mean, and has meant, the loss of some of these liberties, which makes compromise difficult.Click here to continue reading →

Many Americans will be headed to some form of worship service in this final weekend before the election. In the United States, the freedom to worship is a fundamental right, enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. Obviously not all of us agree on who should win on Tuesday. But, as we head to church, synagogue, temple or mosque, and as we reflect on the historical importance of what’s happening in our country next week, we here at MittRomneyCentral invite you to make the outcome of the election the subject of prayer and, if it’s part of your religious tradition, fasting.

With Article VI blog and Evangelicals for Mitt, we’ve asked before for your prayerful support of Governor and Mrs. Romney. Those past calls for prayer were made on behalf of Evangelicals, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Presbyterians and members of many other religions. Today the call for prayer comes from a friend of MittRomneyCentral who is a devout Catholic, Art Grant (who, notably, has a member of his faith on both major tickets).

Our past calls for prayer were on the eve of the convention and the debates. At those times we took pains to make clear we were not praying for a victory, but that Mitt and Ann be favored as they carried incredible burdens. We called for prayers that they be able to communicate effectively and with extraordinary capacity. We called for prayers that the American people would be open to their message and have clear minds to make an informed decision when election day came. We believe those prayers were answered. Ann shone in her convention speech and Mitt’s debate performances were spectacular. Days of obfuscation on the part of Mitt’s opponents followed, but in those moments, Americans saw who Mitt Romney is, and what Mitt and Ann Romney stand for.

Today Art goes beyond what we’ve asked before and asks that we pray that Mitt win. With election day upon us, the time for the American people to decide is now, and we join with him. The authors of this website believe it is appropriate to work toward, and even pray for, causes we feel are worthy. Not all agree. While we will strenuously defend the rights of all people, even those who disagree with us, to do vote their conscience and solicit the help of the deity they choose, we obviously believe it would be best for Mitt to emerge victor on Tuesday, and that the country will be better off under his leadership, and so we claim this privilege for ourselves as well. If you don’t agree, everyone can join us in praying that Americans making up their minds will be influenced by the truth of the arguments made and not be swayed by falsehoods; that voters will be inspired; that voters will feel the weight of their responsibility and seek to understand the issues at stake; and that people will understand both major candidates, what they stand for, and where they would lead this country. And if you agree with us Mitt Romney is the right choice, we invite you to exercise your First Amendment rights and fast and pray for him, that God attend his and our efforts, and that, in the best interest of the country, he be elected as the 45th President of the United States this coming Tuesday.

From Art Grant:

If ever there was a time for prayer it is now. No matter your faith, the future of this great nation is at stake and it is time to take a collective moment, close our eyes, get down on our knees, and pray to God that Governor Romney wins this election on Tuesday. This is a call to every citizen who has even a glimmer of understanding of what this unprecedented, unique idea of a country called America is all about, who understands the founding principles that have guided us to this point in our history. For in our own Pledge of Allegiance we proclaim:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

A belief in God has been a part of this country since the beginning, and people from all walks of life, all nations, and all faiths have proven through our relatively short history that if you have faith, work hard, and lead an honest life, you will have the opportunity to be a success in America. Governor Romney not only understands this, he has lived it himself! It is this OPPORTUNITY that is the most unique and precious thing about living in this country, and must be preserved. We succeed as a nation because we can succeed as individuals, as families, as communities, cities, and states. And so we pray, as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, that Governor Romney can prevail on Tuesday.

Obama tried to appear intimidating throughout the evening… The President also clenched his jaw plenty of times through the third and final presidential debate with Governor Mitt Romney at Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Oct 23, 2012 (photographer unknown)

It’s all about swing states and undecided voters…

After last night’s debate in Boca Raton, one of the much-talked-of “undecideds” DECIDED. She (yes, one of the prized female voters) appeared on FOX News this morning to explain.

What swayed her is key.

Identified as ‘Wendy’, she felt that, even though last night’s debate was about foreign policy, it all kept coming back to the economy. She was impressed with Mitt Romney’s economic expertise and got the salient point he made that a strong national defense depends on a strong military and a strong military depends on a strong economy. When asked about Obama’s performance and especially his meant-to-insult ‘horses, bayonets, aircraft carriers’ comment she replied, “Honestly, he came off like a bully.” Wendy concluded that Obama’s tone was degrading and for her, personally, she did not like it.

Condescension and ridicule is not appealing, especially to many women, and especially when the one doing the condescending and ridiculing has such a failed record. Obama has become the politician he excoriated when he first ran for president.

Obama’s locked-on, aggressive, theatrical glare toward Romney throughout the debate revealed a peevish, insecure president. Instead of making himself look like the Commander-in-Chief, he reduced himself to Commander-of-Stink Eye.

What are others saying about the debate?

They’re saying if one wasn’t aware of American politics and had just tuned in, they would have thought Romney was the President and Obama was the wanna-be challenger. Romney also handily dismissed Obama’s false meme that he’s a warmonger. He’s NOT SCARY.

They’re also saying: Romney “LOOKED AND SOUNDED PRESIDENTIAL.”

“Romney Did What He Needed To Do” … “He Gets The Win” … “Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama”

Romney Press:

The Wall Street Journal: Mitt Romney “Wasn’t Rattled, And If Anything Looked Cooler Than A Sometimes Peevish Mr. Obama.” “Mr. Romney was clearly keeping his eye on his main challenge of the evening, which was looking Presidential on issues that offer an incumbent a natural advantage. He passed that test with ease, making no major mistakes while offering impressive detail on everything from the radical government in Mali—make that ‘north Mali’—to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. He wasn’t rattled, and if anything looked cooler than a sometimes peevish Mr. Obama.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)

New York Post: “Romney More Than Held His Own, Proving Himself A More-Than-Credible Potential Commander-In-Chief. … He Gets The Win.” “President Obama went on the attack against Mitt Romney again last night in their final debate — a tactic usually reserved for the challenger. The president, no doubt, felt the need — given Romney’s recent surge in the polls and Obama’s disappointing record on foreign-policy issues, the topic of the debate. But Romney more than held his own, proving himself a more-than-credible potential commander-in-chief. By that alone, he gets the win.” (New York Post, 10/23/12)

ABC News’ Rick Klein: “In A Debate About Who Should Be Commander-In-Chief, Mitt Romney Was Just As Much In Command As The Man In The Job Now.” (ABC News, 10/23/12)

Time’s Mark Halperin: Romney “Completed The Trifecta Of Appearing As The President’s Semiotic Equal In Every Debate.” (Time, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens: “Mitt Romney Emerges Looking Like A Perfectly Plausible President…” “[Romney’s] most effective turns in the debate came when he brought it all back to the economy. He seemed reasonable and tempered and pragmatic and unruffled and therefore presidential. … But Mitt Romney emerges looking like a perfectly plausible president—which was no doubt all he wanted from tonight.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/23/12)

Governor Mitt Romney shakes hands with Barack Obama after the debate at the Keith C. and Elaine Johnson Wold Performing Arts center at Lynn University on October 22, 2012 in Boca Raton, Florida. Click on image to enlarge. (Photo – Getty Images)

Politico’s Alexander Burns: Romney Had “A Cooler Approach To The Debate That Reflected His Enhanced Stature…” “Romney, for his part, took a cooler approach to the debate that reflected his enhanced stature in a race that has tightened since the first debate in Denver at the start of October.” (Politico, 10/22/12)

CNN’s John King: “After Three Debates, The Trend Line Is Moving Governor Romney’s Way.” “After three debates, the trend line is moving Governor Romney’s way. In all nine tossup states, Governor Romney was in a stronger position this morning than he was the day before the first debate” (CNN, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Glenn Thrush: Romney “Showed An Easy Mastery Of The Details That Has Sometimes Bedeviled Lesser Candidates.” “Rules or no, Romney was at his most effective when calmly articulating his economic case and calling out the president for failing to articulate a detailed vision for his second term. … Romney didn’t embarrass himself on the issues, and showed an easy mastery of the details that has sometimes bedeviled lesser candidates.” (Politico,Politico 10/23/12)

New York Daily News’ Joshua Greenman: “But For The Purposes Of Fast-Approaching Nov. 6, What Happened Was: Romney Did What He Needed To Do.” (New York Daily News, 10/23/12)

Politico’s John Harris: Obama Had “A Nitpicking, Overly Aggressive Strategy … Diminishing The President’s Greatest Asset Which Is The Fact He Is Already Commander In Chief.” HARRIS: “I felt that in a number of times when the president was making his point so aggressively. What was communicated in those exchanges was not strength and confidence but what was communicated was a kind of, sort of a nitpicking, overly aggressive strategy which had the effect of diminishing the president’s greatest asset which is the fact he is already commander in chief.” (C-SPAN, 10/22/12)

Commentary Magazine’s Jonathan Tobin: “Obama Wasn’t Able To Throw Romney Off His Game Or Embarrass Him … It Was Romney That Looked And Sounded Presidential…” “Despite interruptions and attempts to turn even the points they agreed upon into disagreements, Obama wasn’t able to throw Romney off his game or embarrass him. By contrast, it was Romney that looked and sounded presidential, avoiding issues that work to the Democrats’ advantage like Afghanistan and refusing to be ruffled.” (Commentary Magazine, 10/23/12)

Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes: “Mitt Romney’s Aim Was To Present Himself With The Demeanor And Grasp Of Foreign And National Security Issues Of A President Of The United States. He Succeeded.” (Weekly Standard, 10/23/12)

UPDATES:

Weekly Standard’s William Kristol: “Tonight, Romney Seems As Fully Capable As—Probably More Capable Than—Barack Obama Of Being The Next President. He Probably Will Be.” (Weekly Standard, 10/22/12)

NBC News’ Chuck Todd: “POTUS Is Consistently Trying To Draw Romney Into A More Contentious Debate. It’s What Challengers Do Who Think They Are Behind.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

Politico’s Dylan Byers: “Romney Looks Presidential. Period. & That Is What He Needs From These Three Debates.” (Twitter.com, 10/22/12)

The Wall Street Journal’s Patrick O’Connor: “Romney Is Presenting Himself As The Sober Future President, While Obama Is Attacking The Republican Nominee Like A Man Sliding In The Polls.” “Well, the distinctions seem fairly clear at this point: Romney is presenting himself as the sober future president, while Obama is attacking the Republican nominee like a man sliding in the polls.” (The Wall Street Journal, 10/22/12)

Fox News’ Chris Wallace: “I Would Have Thought The Guy That Had Turned Out To Be Mitt Romney Was The President…” WALLACE: “Yeah, let me first give you my general opinion. And that was, I thought in the middle of the debate that if I had been on the desert island for the last four years and I had just been parachuted into this debate, I would have thought the guy that had turned out to be Mitt Romney was the president protecting a lead and that Barack Obama was the challenger trying, somewhat desperately to catch up.” (Fox News, 10/22/12)

CNN’s David Gergen: “I Think Mitt Romney Did Something Extremely Important To His Campaign Tonight: He Passed The Commander-In-Chief Test.” (CNN, 10/22/12)

PPP did a snap poll immediately after the debate tonight. The respondents scored it a slight lead for Obama at 53% to 42% (yeah, it was another +6% Democratic oversample and PPP is a democratic pollster … but I think that just strengthens my arguments). That 11% edge is smaller than the numbers Obama got in the 2nd debate, and MUCH smaller than the numbers Mitt received after the 1st debate. (FYI … CNN’s snap poll scored tonight’s debate it a bit closer at 48%-40% in favor of Obama).

That’s bad news then, right?!?! … that Romney didn’t “win” the debate? Not at all. Mitt continued to rise in the national and swing-state polls over the last week despite Obama’s “win” in the last debate. The last two days especially, Democrats have been shocked and are panicking that the President didn’t get a bounce in the polls from that.

Here’s the secret though … People’s judging of who “wins” debates is solely based on who is the most aggressive candidate that night. Snap polls showed that Joe Biden “won” the VP debate over Paul Ryan … but Biden turned off MANY voters with his style and condescension. Obama wasn’t as bad as Biden was, but his intimidating stares, his incessant attacks at Romney, and his petty condescension will NOT play well with undecided voters … especially with undecided women.

Don’t believe me? That same PPP poll linked above has the following interesting question and cross-tab.

“Did the debate tonight make you more or less likely to vote for BO/MR, or did it not make a difference?”

Among Independents for Obama: More likely 32%, Less likely 48%, No Difference 20% … for a net of MINUS 16%

Among Independents for Romney: More likely 47%, Less likely 35%, No Difference 18% … for a net of PLUS 12%

That’s a HUGE advantage among Independents for Romney based on TONIGHT’S debate. Yeah, Obama sure “won” tonight, eh? Team Romney is fighting to “Win The War” … and will take some lumps in individual battles to make sure the end goal occurs. He was confident, optimistic, and Presidential. Obama was petty, insulting, and snarky. Quite the contrast!

Nothing happened tonight to blunt Mitt’s momentum. Obama was swinging for the fences, but failed to connect. Romney easily cleared the credible Commander-In-Chief bar and avoided ANY gaffes. His last few answers and rebuttals were awesome, and his closing statement was EPIC!

We need to work to help make sure it happens, but Mitt’s well on his way to winning this race. Romney has ALL the momentum, and that’s why Obama was attacking desperately. That alone was telling.

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.

Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

The debate will focus on foreign policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

Taking a quick break from presidential debate preparations, Mitt Romney today donned a t-shirt and shorts to cheer on a bit of friendly beach brouhaha. Spirits were high and Secret Service personnel dotted the beach as reporters, who cover Romney on the campaign trail, and senior staffers were getting set to kick up some sand in a game of flag football on Florida’s beautiful Delray Beach.

“Let’s see; look at the captain. Gail’s a captain, is that right? Got a bracelet for you. This is a “Clear eyes, full heart, America can’t lose, all right?” Romney said to Gail Gitcho, his communications adviser.

“Ashley’s a captain. There ya go, look at that,” Romney said to The New York Times Ashley Parker.

Gitcho and Parker shook hands, and then Romney asked Parker if she was going to call the flip in the air.

“You’re going to call it really? You want it to hit the ground?” he asked her.

“You can catch if you want,” Parker said.

Romney decided to throw it up and let it drop. Parker called tails, and after searching for the coin in the sand, Gitcho found it and announced that it was tails.

“Tails it is! That’s the last call you guys are getting,” Romney good-heartedly declared.

Before the game started, Romney looked over his team and and jocularly added “Where’s Chris Christie when we need him? He’s our line.”

Romney, who regularly plays football with his family, watched the first play of the game. Then, with less than 48 hours to go until the third and final debate showdown with Obama, headed off to get back to prepping.

Guess who showed up during the course of the game? Mom-to-five-boysAnn Romney. She got in the mix and threw the touchdown that tied the game! Atta girl!

William Bigelow from Breitbart reveals more facts about debate moderator Candy Crowley’s thinly-veiled preference for Barack Obama at last night’s presidential debate in Hempstead, New York:

CROWLEY INTERRUPTS ROMNEY 28 TIMES, OBAMA JUST 9

Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

In the first presidential debate, Jim Lehrer, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Mitt Romney 15 times and Barack Obama only five.

Crowley made Lehrer look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.

Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

Bigelow then outlines specific instances, beyond the interruptions, where Crowley’s “obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect.” He includes Obama’s lie about the auto industry, gas prices being the new normal, Crowley’s ‘terror- Libya’ interruption, Romney’s statistics, OBAMA’S PENSION INVESTING IN CHINA, ‘fast and furious’ and more. She was the third debater at the debate.

Bigelow concludes:

The fact that Obama escaped all night long by lie after lie didn’t seem to disturb Crowley in the slightest. She had her shadowy agenda, and she stuck to it fiercely. Now it is our job to throw her out into the sun where every American can see exactly how dirty she is.